Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Joerg Sievers wrote: Hi Martin, Hi there! Martin Hollmichel wrote: I suggest that we make this cws policies official on July 11th if there are no objections until then. I have modified some things in the Wiki without changing or deleting the content or the meaning of it: Me too.

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Mathias, >> a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at the output trees >> (that's the default case). A "non-product" has no such suffix, and >> gets enabled via --enable-dbgutil at the configure line. We should >> rather advertise this a bit more, because people then get assertions >>

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Thorsten Behrens wrote: > a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at the output trees > (that's the default case). A "non-product" has no such suffix, and > gets enabled via --enable-dbgutil at the configure line. We should > rather advertise this a bit more, because people then get assert

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, > Unfortunately they will also get assertions with a vanilla build, > which makes this less useful. I wasted a lot of time trying to > track down the cause of an assertion, assuming it was due to a > change I had introduced, before discovering it still occurred > with a clean checkout.

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Martin Whitaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately they will also get assertions with a vanilla build, > which makes this less useful. I wasted a lot of time trying to > track down the cause of an assertion, assuming it was due to a > change I had introduced, before discovering it still o

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:25 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Kohei Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. What do they mean exactly? Hi Kohei, a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at the output trees (that's the defau

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 07:15 +0200, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germa?ßISO-8859-1?Q?ny wrote: > Hi Kohei, > > > 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. > > What do they mean exactly? > > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Non_Product_Build Excellent. Tha

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Kohei, > 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. > What do they mean exactly? http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Non_Product_Build Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http:/

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Thorsten, On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:25 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Kohei Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. > > What do they mean exactly? > > > Hi Kohei, > > a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at th

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:22 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > Mathias Bauer already pointed out that a operational build bot system is > essential and solves the problems you mention here, we need to make this > a priority That sounds fantastic, thank you. :-) Kohei ---

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Kohei Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) The use of "product" and "non-product" terms seems unclear to me. > What do they mean exactly? > Hi Kohei, a "product" version is one that has .pro suffix at the output trees (that's the default case). A "non-product" has no such suffix, and gets en

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Mathias Bauer already pointed out that a operational build bot system is essential and solves the problems you mention here, we need to make this a priority, Martin 2) IMO, requiring that the developer of the cws make the binary install set available to the QA personnel has the following downs

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 17:28 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > Eike Rathke wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > On Wednesday, 2007-07-04 17:04:39 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > > > > > >> modified version of the child workspace policies on > >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies >

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Martin Hollmichel wrote: Eike Rathke wrote: [...] | A CWS must be built on at least two platforms in the "product" version | (Windows and one UNIX platform) How will we ensure that non-Hamburg based CWSs can be built on these platforms and install sets be made available? I'm not sure ab

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Eike Rathke wrote: Hi Martin, On Wednesday, 2007-07-04 17:04:39 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: modified version of the child workspace policies on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies#Build_Configurations | A CWS

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

With the help of Nikolai we are now able to provide a proposal for a modified version of the child workspace policies on http:// wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies Several points: - I'll fix typos in the wiki directly. - I do not understand "There will be no minor versions in a C

Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Kohei Yoshida schrieb: > If we have an automated buildbot that provides an installation set, it's > a different story, though. IMHO it more or less boils down to this point. As long as we are not able to create builds for any CWS on any platform in a few hours we will always have hurdles to overc

Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Kohei Yoshida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we have an automated buildbot that provides an installation set, it's > a different story, though. > There's supposed to be buildbots for said platforms - number and speed of those can clearly be improved upon, though. We've had intermittent trouble

Re: [dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Oliver, On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 10:07 +0200, Oliver Craemer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote: > Hi, > > good work, but I miss the point where it is mentioned that there must be > a link to the installsets for the QA. This should not be a "nice to > have" but a "must", otherwise the QA rep

[dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi, good work, but I miss the point where it is mentioned that there must be a link to the installsets for the QA. This should not be a "nice to have" but a "must", otherwise the QA representative has to ask the cws owner for the installsets (with the delay which maybe occurs because of diffe

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Peter, Peter Junge wrote: defined wrong. Please refer included link . Done! Cu, Jogi http://qa.openoffice.org/qatesttool http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User:Jsi -- Sun Microsystems GmbH Joerg Sievers Nagelsweg 5

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, Martin Hollmichel wrote: I suggest that we make this cws policies official on July 11th if there are no objections until then. I have modified some things in the Wiki without changing or deleting the content or the meaning of it: - We should use the common wording in the communi

[dev] Re: [qa-dev] Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Michael, Michael Meeks schrieb: Hi Martin, On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 14:14 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: With the help of Nikolai we are now able to provide a proposal for a modified version of the child workspace policies on http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies Thi

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Moin Peter :-) Peter Junge schrieb: Hi Martin, Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, for a long time it has been already practice that not all child workspaces had to be approved by a QA Team member but also by another developer. The same applies for the involvement of the user experience Team. Tog

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, Martin Hollmichel wrote: Hi, for a long time it has been already practice that not all child workspaces had to be approved by a QA Team member but also by another developer. The same applies for the involvement of the user experience Team. Together with Lutz for the user experienc

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 14:14 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > With the help of Nikolai we are now able to provide a proposal for a > modified version of the child workspace policies on > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies This looks like an improvement :-) th

Re: [dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi Martin, On Wednesday, 2007-07-04 17:04:39 +0200, Martin Hollmichel wrote: > modified version of the child workspace policies on > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/CWS_Policies#Build_Configurations | A CWS must be built on at least

[dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi, for a long time it has been already practice that not all child workspaces had to be approved by a QA Team member but also by another developer. The same applies for the involvement of the user experience Team. Together with Lutz for the user experience team and Thorsten for the QA team we re

[dev] proposal for change of cws policies

Hi, for a long time it has been already practice that not all child workspaces had to be approved by a QA Team member but also by another developer. The same applies for the involvement of the user experience Team. Together with Lutz for the user experience team and Thorsten for the QA team w